March 1, 2006 – 5:23 pm
- It is difficult to find a definition of free verse that doesn't center on what it isn't. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, for example, describes free verse as "the prosody of avoidance of meter." Doesn't tell you much. It's as if free verse's identity is entirely reactive - it's an absence, a negative form. That's an enormous oversimplification of how things really are, but the popular concensus is that free verse, unlike the verse forms that came before it, derives its identity by rejecting previous formal models instead of incorporating them.
- The rejected thing remains. It's revenant, which is to say, it always and again returns in some form. It's spectral, ghostly, a shadow beneath and within the contemporary poem. Previous generations hyper-consciously rejected form; it was necessary for them to do so, because they often had been rigorously trained to write formally. Our generation generally lacks such rigorous training - it's been replaced with an "intuitive" sense of cadence, taught to us over many hundreds of contemporary poems. We are drawn to certain rhythms and sounds as the ones that comfort us, or excite us, or make us angry. We share a popular poetic ear that's considerably different from the ear of a century ago. Often, when someone writes with a century-old sense of cadence, we call it inauthentic, forced or artificial. If that sense of cadence should appear in a line or a phrase within free verse, we detect it as a dead thing, an aural spectre, asserting regularity where our ear expects variation. The poem is haunted by past poems, all the way down to its foundations of cadence and sound, all the way to its spine.
- It is important to note that our generation's "variation" is the next generation's noise ghost.
- So the poem is a haunted house. The ghost is the formal past, and free verse is the talisman, the vehicle that will release us from the house. Should we escape, or should we hunt the spectre?
- This is a defining aspect of the culture of American poetry. In one instance, contemporary poetry yearns to have the academic and technical machinery of the formal past; in another, it angrily rejects that past and all its trappings. Nostalgia battles nihilism; romance wrestles with real language. No matter who wins, poetry emerges as a kind of formalized machine - if we establish technical machinery, or if we reject the need for such machinery, we set rules for how poems are to be made. We smooth them out, give them guidelines, make them consistent with one another. Make them dull.
- Wanna know what free verse is? I'll tell you. It's a collection of practices and techniques. That's all.
- Everyone who's seen a horror movie knows what happens if you don't escape the haunted house - it devours you and you become part of it. You become part of the haunting.
- Reminder: in this case, the house is poetry.
3 Responses to “notes on spectral poetics”
Is poetry the house or the vehicle?
and yes I do think its possible….
By Lisa Emily on Mar 2, 2006
I think poetry (in general) is the house, the thing that gets occupied or haunted. And form or style is the vehicle, or the spectre, depending on your perspective and the age in which you live. To put it differently: poetry is an institution that we as a culture construct over time. We decide things like, “yes, this poem moves us,” or, “this poem is totally forgettable.” The establishment (academics, publishers, etc) decide a lot of that for us, but we have a say in what goes into the walls of that house too.
But over the centuries, things changed in the English-speaking world - we had a couple of nasty wars that broke our romantic ideals, or at least permanently altered them. Those romantic ideals - true love, an ordered universe, “civilized” behavior - were closely associated with things like the sonnet, the villanelle, the vocative O (”O Titus!”). We rebelled against those things - forms and styles - and gave birth to free verse. Once upon a time, the sonnet was the vehicle … now it’s the ghost. But the ghost and vehicle occupy the same house, right along with us.
I could be wrong about all of this, you know.
By Preston on Mar 2, 2006